Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

No, this is a wrong argument.

There are a large number of continuous physical quantities, not only length (though all continuous quantities are dependent in one way or another on space or time, which are the primitive continuous quantities), and the reason why you cannot encode an arbitrary amount of information into a specific value of such a quantity is because it is impossible to make an object for which such a quantity would have a perfectly constant value. All the values of such quantities are affected by noise-like variations so you could store information only in the average value of such a quantity, computed over some time and any such average would still be affected by uncertainties that limit the amount of information that can be stored.

One of the most constant lengths that have ever characterized an artificial object has been the length of the international prototype meter kept in France and used to define the meter until 1960. To minimize the length variations, that meter bar was made of platinum-iridium alloy and it was measured at a temperature as constant as possible.

Despite the precautions, which included gentle removing of the dust and handling with soft grippers, the length of that meter bar fluctuated continuously. Even if it was attempted to keep a constant temperature, very small fluctuations in temperature still caused thermal expansions and contractions. Every time the bar was touched, a few metal atoms were removed from it, but other atoms from the environment remained stuck to its surface, changing the length.

All these continuous variations have nothing to do with the possibility of the space being discrete, but they limit the amount of information that can be stored in any such value.

For now there exists absolutely no evidence about the space or time being discrete and not continuous. There have been attempts to make theories based on the discreteness of the space and/or time, but until now they have not provided any useful result.




No, this is a wrong argument. We can specify arbitrarily low temperatures by hypothesis, obviating the objection. If you want to get pedantic you could note that measuring something that is, say, 10^-30m is unphysical - not even laser interferometry gets that small, or anywhere close. However, given that the argument uses a counter-factual, you'd have to extrapolate all the ways that would affect apparatuses.

Instead, my way is simpler by generating an absurd result that if you could build and measure a thing to arbitrary precision you can encode infinite information into it. This is enough for me to reject the counter-factual without going through the messiness of thinking through hypothetical realistic experiments.

The one interesting place to consider is at the Schwarzchild radius of a black hole, where presumably information accumulates to an absurd degree, monotonically over time. I don't really know enough about it to comment intelligently, so I won't except to note its existence.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: